Is There an Appropriate End Date for Asbestos Use?

When we first became an asbestos consultant over 39 years ago, we remember people telling us that buildings will remove all their asbestos materials in 5 years, 10 years, or 15 years depending on who we talked to.  Well, asbestos is still in buildings and this article is about why there are many years still left in this industry.  In the construction industry, there are some who think that a certain year was the end of asbestos use in building materials.  Over the years we have reviewed many asbestos inspection reports or property transfer reports (phase I environmental audits) reporting that since a building or a part of a building was built after 1980 there are no asbestos-containing materials.  The companies making this statement assume that the federal government banned all asbestos-containing materials in 1980.  In New York State, the Department of Labor (NYSDOL), which regulates asbestos abatement, uses the year 1974 in the regulations for determining which buildings require the assumption of building materials that contain asbestos.  While the federal government, under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulation 1926.1101 (k) (1), requires building owners to presume surfacing materials, and thermal system insulations, installed prior to 1980, to contain asbestos.  To refute this presumption these materials must be sampled.  Regarding asphalt and vinyl flooring materials installed no later than 1980 must also be considered asbestos-containing or sampled to refute the designation.  In addition, the regulation also requires if the employers/building owners have actual knowledge, or should have known through the exercise of due diligence, that other materials are asbestos-containing they too must be treated as such.  Owners are required to handle these building materials as asbestos-containing materials (ACM) until a certified asbestos inspector takes samples of the materials, in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), and the samples verify the materials do not contain asbestos (which usually means multiple samples of the building material have to been taken and all samples must have results that no asbestos is in the building material).  However, are 1974 or 1980 appropriate dates to use in making a determination whether building materials can contain asbestos?  We think not!

Terrazo?

The Ban and Attempts to Ban Asbestos

The federal agency with the responsibility for banning asbestos is the EPA.  This agency, under the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS), banned the use of asbestos for sprayed-on application of fireproofing and insulating in 1973 and for decorating purposes in 1978.  In 1975 EPA’s NESHAPS regulation also banned the installation of pre-formed (molded) asbestos block insulation on boilers and hot water tanks and the wet-applied and pre-formed (molded) asbestos pipe insulation.  Since two of these bans did not go into effect until after 1974, the New York State end of use date is not appropriate and the construction industry should not use it to determine buildings that contain asbestos.  In 1985 EPA published "Guidance for Controlling Asbestos-Containing Materials in Buildings" which has become known as the "Purple Book".  The Purple Book in Appendix A has a list titled "Asbestos-Containing Materials in Buildings".  This list shows a large number of asbestos-containing materials that were still being used in 1981.  Based on this information, it seems 1980 is not an appropriate end date for asbestos use, including asphalt and vinyl flooring materials.  Under a separate regulation, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA tried to ban and phase out the use of asbestos in 1989.  In 1991 the “Asbestos Ban and Phaseout Rule,” as the rule became known as, was vacated and remanded by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  In 1993 EPA stated that corrugated paper, roll board, commercial paper, specialty paper, flooring felt, and new uses of asbestos were still subject to the ban.  Vacating the “Asbestos Ban and Phaseout Rule” meant that a number of building materials could contain asbestos such as asbestos-cement corrugated sheet, asbestos-cement flat sheet, asbestos clothing, pipeline wrap, roofing felt, vinyl-asbestos floor tile, asbestos-cement shingle, millboard, asbestos-cement pipe, automatic transmission components, clutch facings, friction materials, disc brake pads, drum brake linings, brake blocks, gaskets, ceiling tiles, non-roofing coatings, and roof coatings are not banned and could still be used in buildings.  The recent attempt to ban asbestos was made under the amended TSCA regulation.  In 2016, President Barak Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act that amended TSCA and made needed improvements to the law including requiring risk-based chemical assessments.  In 2019 EPA published a final rule called the Significant New Use Rule (SNUR).  The SNUR requires manufacturers and importers to receive EPA approval before starting or resuming manufacturing and importing or processing of asbestos.  Materials subject to this law include adhesives; sealants; roof coatings; arc chutes; beater-add gaskets; extruded sealant tape; and other tapes; filler for acetylene cylinders; high-grade electrical paper; billboard; missile liner; packings; pipeline wrap; reinforced plastics; roofing felt; separators in fuel cells and batteries; vinyl-asbestos floor tile; cement products; woven products; and any other building material.  It is obvious that this law does not ban asbestos nor does it really answer the question of how much asbestos is in commerce currently.  

Electrical wire insulation

Asbestos Used Still Today

Is there an appropriate end date for asbestos use in buildings?  Some headlines indicate the answer to this question is no.  These headlines indicate that some current building materials are contaminated with asbestos or still contain asbestos sufficiently enough for the materials to be considered asbestos-containing materials.  For example, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) reported in November 2007 that they sampled a number of current building materials and determined that DAP’s “33” window glazing and “crack shot” spackling paste and Gardner’s leak stopper roof patch all contained asbestos.  DAP’s “33” window glazing was purchased at Home Depot and Lowes for the purpose of the study and contained 2.6% tremolite, and 0.13% chrysotile asbestos (2.73% total asbestos).  DAP’s “crack shot” spackling paste was also purchased at Home Depot and Lowes and contained 0.98% tremolite, and 0.066% chrysotile asbestos (1.05% total asbestos).  Gardner’s “leak stopper roof patch,” along with other products by Gardner, is listed with the National Institute of Health as known asbestos-containing material on the open market and contained 11% chrysotile asbestos.  It is important to remember that the definition of asbestos-containing materials is any material that contains greater than 1% of asbestos in the material.  Though this does not apply to the OSHA asbestos regulation which is more concerned about how much asbestos gets in the air from a material that contains any asbestos.  In addition, the New York Times reported on July 20, 2001, that W. R. Grace & Company’s Monokote (probably #5) fireproofing spray product (used in the late 1980s) was contaminated with tremolite asbestos.  The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported on February 8, 2005, that seven of W. R. Grace & Company’s current or former executives were indicted on federal charges that they knowingly put their workers and the public in danger through exposure to vermiculite ore contaminated with tremolite asbestos from its mine in Libby, Montana.  In 1990 W. R. Grace & Company closed the mine but the ore was used as attic and wall insulation, wallboard, and fireproofing into the early 1990s.  The asbestos content in these materials can be as high as 2%.  In research conducted by EPA on vermiculite attic insulation in 2001 and 2002, found homeowners that use their attics could be exposed to airborne asbestos fibers above the OSHA permissible exposure limit (0.1 fibers/cubic centimeters).

asbestos woven products

The Liability of Ignorance

Since there is no total ban on the use of asbestos in building materials, it means that 1974 or 1980 are not appropriate cut off dates on the use of asbestos in building materials.  This means all buildings or facilities no matter when they were constructed should be inspected for asbestos-containing materials.  EPA's NESHAP regulation 40 CFR 61.145 Standard for demolition and renovation requires buildings/facilities to be thoroughly inspected before the renovation or demolition, no matter what date the building was built.  It also means that the construction industry should be very careful when working on buildings after these dates because it is possible that if an asbestos inspection or survey was done it may have not been done properly.  From our experience, we've seen inspectors not sample roofing materials, joint compound, sheetrock, textured paint, siding shingles, and window caulking just to name a few building materials that should be sampled.  Building owners, banks, facility managers, architects, engineers, general contractors, and subcontractors should not think that because the EPA regulation requires an inspection, and if the inspection is not done correctly that there is no chance for a violation or liability.  OSHA requires that employers inform their workers of all the potential hazards at a project (job) site.  Should materials that were not inspected turn out to be asbestos-containing or even if the sample result is 1% or trace asbestos and the exposure exceeds the permissible exposure limit (0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter based on an eight hour time-weighted average) or the excursion limit (1.0 fibers per cubic centimeter over thirty minutes) the employer would be in violation of the OSHA asbestos regulation.  No matter the construction date of the building.  The building owner could then face third-party litigation from the workers if they develop a disease (mesothelioma being the most significant because of its direct tie to asbestos exposure) from such an exposure.  In addition, the AHERA regulation which applies to public and private schools (kindergarten to 12th grade)  requires that architects that design new schools or renovations of existing schools certify that the building materials used do not contain asbestos.  Utilizing safety data sheets (SDS), which are required for most building products, to certify the products would not be sufficient considering that DAP’s SDS (discussed above) did not mention the asbestos contamination in the product and the NESHAPS regulation requires building materials to be sampled for the content of asbestos.  Meaning the only way to certify the products to limit liability would be to have suspected materials sampled and analyzed for asbestos.  It is very important for building owners, banks, facility managers, architects, engineers, general contractors, sub-contractors, asbestos inspectors, and phase I environmental auditors to realize that although the asbestos regulations refer to dates before 1980, inspections are advisable and required under the EPA's NESHAPS & OSHA's asbestos regulations since the installation of asbestos-containing materials into buildings can continue to this day.

Fire Door

EPA and OSHA Have Interesting Timing for Asbestos Regulations

As usual, summer is the busy season for the asbestos abatement industry.  With most schools closed for the summer, this is the perfect time to do asbestos abatement work for the renovation, remodeling, or demolition work necessary.  Interestingly, both the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) thought this would be the best time to ask for comments from the public and the industry about asbestos regulations.

Also interesting is that OSHA is looking to reduce regulatory requirements while EPA is looking to create regulations.  OSHA's public comment period ends August 21, 2026, and EPA's docket for public comments closes on August 24, 2026.

OSHA Still Pushing Its Unpopular Asbestos Respirator Proposal

OSHA's proposed changes actually came out July 1, 2025, and that comment period closed on November 1, 2025, after an extension from the original closing date.  As we discussed in our classes, the proposed changes are to reduce compliance burdens, allow for the use of more up-to-date technology, and improve the comprehensibility of the requirements for respiratory protection programs under the standards.  Part of the intent of this proposal was also to better align these standards with OSHA's respiratory protection standard.  However, this proposal would significantly increase a worker's exposure to asbestos.  Just the elimination of the HEPA filter requirement would increase a worker's exposure by 24,000 asbestos fibers in an 8-hour workday.  For more information about these changes, see our blog post OSHA’s Proposed Asbestos Respirator Changes Raise Important Safety Concerns.

On April 1 and May 19, 2026, OSHA consulted with the Advisory Committee and Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) on the proposed changes to asbestos and the other changes they proposed for the chemicals (there are 16 chemicals) that have specific respiratory protection requirements like asbestos.  If you review the meeting minutes of the ACCSH, OSHA's proposal for removing the HEPA filter requirement was rejected, and the same for the proposal to change assigned protection factors.  So we hope, based on all this, that should be the end of this dangerous proposal.

EPA Opens Public Docket for Asbestos Part 2 Rulemaking: A Critical Opportunity to Shape the Future of Legacy Asbestos Regulation

For decades, those of us in the asbestos industry have understood one simple truth: legacy asbestos is the problem that isn't going away.  While the EPA's 2024 rule addressing chrysotile asbestos represented a step forward, it left many unanswered questions regarding the millions of asbestos-containing materials that remain in schools, commercial buildings, industrial facilities, and homes throughout the United States.  Those "legacy uses" continue to expose workers, contractors, maintenance personnel, building occupants, and even homeowners to asbestos every day.

Now, the EPA has officially opened a public docket seeking additional information to assist in developing "Asbestos Part 2: Legacy Uses and Associated Disposals of Asbestos" under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  This is more than another request for comments.  It is an opportunity for the environmental consulting, remediation, industrial hygiene, laboratory, and construction industries to provide the real-world information EPA needs to develop regulations that are scientifically sound, practical, and enforceable.  As someone who has spent decades training asbestos inspectors, project designers, contractors, and consultants, we believe many of these questions deserve thoughtful responses from professionals who perform this work every day.

Why EPA Is Asking for More Information

EPA has determined that additional information is necessary before it can propose a final risk management rule addressing legacy asbestos.  Unlike the Part 1 rule, which focused primarily on ongoing commercial uses of chrysotile asbestos, Part 2 addresses the asbestos that already exists throughout our built environment.  EPA specifically states that the additional information will help develop:

• Practical regulatory requirements
• Economic analyses required under TSCA
• Science-based worker protections
• Feasible implementation strategies

That last point is important.  Protecting workers is essential, but regulations must also recognize how asbestos work is actually performed in the field.

Demolition and Renovation Projects

One area EPA is examining involves demolition and renovation projects that fall below the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) thresholds.  Anyone working in our industry knows this is where many exposures occur.  EPA's asbestos NESHAP requires inspections, notifications, work practices, and trained personnel when projects exceed:

• 260 linear feet (LF)
• 160 square feet (SF)
• 35 cubic feet (CF)

But thousands of smaller renovation projects occur every year that never trigger these requirements.  EPA wants to know:

• Are building owners hiring accredited asbestos professionals?
• What work practices are being used?
• Are wet methods, containment, and proper disposal still being followed?
• What happens in single-family homes?

These are important questions because many exposures occur during "small jobs" that are incorrectly assumed to present little risk.  As we've discussed in our asbestos training classes for years, the amount of material removed does not determine whether asbestos fibers are released.  The work practices do.  See our blog post on how floor tile removal can cause asbestos exposures: "Asbestos Floor Tile Debate Results"

Self-Employed Contractors

Perhaps one of the most significant sections of EPA's request concerns self-employed contractors.  OSHA's asbestos construction standard applies to employees.  It does not apply to many self-employed individuals (i.e., handymen).

EPA wants information about:

• Flooring installers
• Drywall contractors
• Roofing contractors
• Renovation contractors
• Siding contractors
• Handymen
• Sole proprietors

Questions include:

• How often do they disturb asbestos?
• How do they identify asbestos-containing materials?
• Do they receive asbestos awareness training?
• What engineering controls do they use?
• What barriers prevent them from having suspect materials analyzed before beginning work?

This is a conversation our industry has needed for years.  Many self-employed contractors work in older buildings where asbestos-containing materials remain common. Unfortunately, many rely solely on experience or visual assessment rather than laboratory analysis.  That approach is risky—not only for the contractor but also for their clients and anyone occupying the building.

Legacy Asbestos Products Still in Service

EPA is also looking beyond insulation and floor tile.  The agency is requesting information about asbestos still present in:

• Industrial equipment
• Pumps
• Valves
• Gaskets
• Packing materials
• Brakes
• Clutches
• Electrical equipment
• Textiles
• Heat-resistant fabrics
• Commercial appliances
• Boilers
• Furnaces
• Kilns
• Elevators
• Military equipment

Many younger environmental professionals may never encounter some of these products.  Those of us who have been in the industry for several decades know they are still out there.  Understanding where they remain, who works with them, and how often they are disturbed will be critical in developing effective regulations.

The Air Sampling Debate Continues

One section of EPA's request immediately caught our attention.  EPA is requesting information regarding the use of:

• Phase Contrast Microscopy (PCM)
• Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM)

Specifically, EPA asks whether laboratories have sufficient TEM capacity if lower exposure limits ultimately require TEM analysis instead of PCM.  Anyone who has followed our writing knows we have discussed the limitations of PCM for years.  PCM counts fibers.  TEM identifies asbestos.  Those are two very different things.  See our blog post: "The Fallacy of Phase Contrast Microscopy (PCM) Clearance Air Sampling, or 5 Reasons Why We Should Stop Using PCM for Clearance."

EPA is asking practical questions that deserve careful consideration:

• Can laboratories handle increased TEM demand?
• What would increased costs mean?
• How much longer would turnaround times become?
• Would compliance monitoring become impractical?

These aren't academic questions.  They directly affect contractors, consultants, industrial hygienists, laboratories, regulators, and building owners.  Finding the balance between scientific accuracy and practical implementation will be one of the biggest challenges facing EPA.

Practical Experience Matters

One aspect we appreciate about this request is that EPA is not simply asking for opinions.  The agency is requesting:

• Exposure data
• Industry practices
• Economic impacts
• Laboratory capabilities
• Engineering controls
• Worker training information
• Real-world implementation challenges

This is exactly the type of information regulators need.  Those of us working in the field every day understand that regulations look very different on paper than they do during an emergency water loss, a school renovation, a hospital shutdown, or an industrial outage.  Field experience matters.

This Is Your Opportunity to Be Heard

EPA cannot develop effective regulations without meaningful participation from those who perform this work every day.  If you are an

• Asbestos consultant
• Industrial hygienist
• Laboratory director
• Project designer
• Contractor
• Building owner
• Safety professional
• Environmental attorney
• Training provider
• Equipment manufacturer

This is your opportunity to contribute.  Your experience can help ensure future regulations improve worker protection while remaining practical and achievable.

Final Thoughts

The asbestos industry has evolved tremendously over the past four decades.  Technology has improved.  Analytical methods have advanced.  Training has become more comprehensive.  Yet legacy asbestos remains one of the most significant occupational and environmental health challenges facing our country.

EPA's Part 2 rule has the potential to shape asbestos management for decades to come.  Whether that rule becomes practical and effective depends, in part, on the quality of information EPA receives during this public comment process.  As we've said many times throughout our careers, "good regulations are built on good science—but they must also be informed by real-world experience."

This is one of those opportunities where the professionals who work with asbestos every day can help shape the future of our industry.  Let's make sure our voices are heard.

**Call to Action**

If you work in the environmental, construction, remediation, industrial hygiene, or laboratory industries, we encourage you to review EPA's questions carefully and consider submitting comments based on your professional experience.  Your input could influence how legacy asbestos is regulated for years to come—affecting worker protection, building owners, contractors, laboratories, and consultants nationwide.

At Future Environment Designs, we will continue monitoring this rulemaking process and providing updates as additional information becomes available.  We will also continue to incorporate these regulatory developments into our asbestos training programs so that inspectors, designers, contractors, and environmental professionals remain informed and prepared for the future.

The best regulations are developed when regulators listen to those who do the work every day. This is one of those opportunities. Don't let it pass.

Chrysotile Asbestos Banned? More Like Certain Conditions of Use Will Be Eventually Banned!

Many of you, as did I, read about the "Ban of Chrysotile Asbestos" and rejoiced over something long overdue.  However, after reading this so-called ban it is obvious that it is not a ban.  Just reading the title of the rule tells you it is not a ban. "Asbestos Part 1 - Chrysotile Asbestos; Regulation of Certain Conditions of Use Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)".  This rule is only regulating "certain conditions of use".  We would say the media needs a dictionary if they actually think after reading the title this is a ban.  What is the definition of a ban?  Ban is to prohibit or forbid especially by legal means (as by statute or order).  After reading the rule, it is obvious this is not banning all uses of chrysotile asbestos, but banning or restricting its use in very specific industries.  In addition, what about the other types of asbestos: amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, anthophyllite, actinolite, or the Libby amphiboles?  No mention of these there!

Since this is not a ban and 40,000 Americans die annually from asbestos-caused diseases it is even more important that we Tell Congress to Ban Asbestos!  The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) has developed a coalition of firefighters, public health, and safety officials who are calling on the public’s support in their decades-long fight to convince the U.S. Congress to ban deadly asbestos.  Now, you have an opportunity to write your own message to US Senators and US Representatives to ask them to support the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act (ARBAN). This act would prohibit the manufacture, processing, use, and distribution of commercial asbestos in commerce - a known carcinogen that is still widely in use across the U.S. Make your voice heard on this link. It takes only a minute.

Chrysotile Asbestos

Before we go into this rule, let's remember we still have the Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) that came out on April 25, 2019.  This rule did not ban any forms of asbestos but allowed manufacturers (including importing), or processors of asbestos (including as part of an article) to seek permission from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the significant new use (it included a list of uses that would need permission).

The final rule can be found on EPA's website here.  The document consists of 40 pages (pages 21970 to 22010).  However, the rule is found on page 22005 (35 pages after the beginning of the document, meaning the rule consists of only 5 pages).  Subpart F - Chrysotile Asbestos starts with the different Sections of the Rule:

• 751.501 General
• 751.503 Definitions
• 751.505 Manufacturing, processing and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos diaphragms in the chlor-alkali industry. 
• 751.507 Certification of compliance for the chlor-alkali industry. 
• 751.509 Other prohibitions and restrictions of the manufacturing, processing and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos. 
• 751.511 Interim workplace controls of asbestos exposures. 
• 751.513 Disposal. 
• 751.515 Recordkeeping. 

As you can see from this list, these are the Certain Conditions of Use.  Let's look at 751.505 diaphragms (means semipermeable diaphragms, which separate the anode from the cathode chemicals in the production of chlorine and sodium hydroxide (caustic soda).  

• Section (a) states, after May 28, 2024, all persons are prohibited from manufacture (including import) of chrysotile asbestos, including any chrysotile asbestos-containing products or articles, for diaphragms in the chlor-alkali industry.  

That is a ban on the import of chrysotile asbestos, but only for diaphragms, however, the next section is on the use of diaphragms containing chrysotile asbestos, 

• Section (b) states, after May 28, 2029, all persons are prohibited from processing, distribution in commerce, and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos, including any chrysotile asbestos-containing products or articles, for diaphragms in the chlor- alkali industry, except as provided in paragraphs (c) through (d) of this section. 

Here is the devil in the details:

• Section (c) Any person who meets all of the criteria of this paragraph (c) may process, distribute in commerce and commercially use chrysotile asbestos, including any chrysotile asbestos- containing products or articles, for diaphragms in the chlor-alkali industry at no more than two facilities until May 25, 2032: (1) On May 28, 2024, the person owns or operates more than one facility that uses chrysotile asbestos in chlor-alkali production; (2) The person is converting more than one facility that the person owns or operates that as of May 28, 2024 uses chrysotile asbestos in chlor-alkali production from the use of chrysotile asbestos diaphragms to non-chrysotile asbestos membrane technology, and by May 28, 2029, the person has ceased all processing, distribution in commerce and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos at one (or more) facility undergoing or that has undergone conversion to non-chrysotile asbestos membrane technology; and (3) The person certifies to EPA compliance with the provisions of this paragraph, in accordance with §751.507. 
• (d) Any person who meets all of the criteria of this paragraph (d) may process, distribute in commerce and commercially use chrysotile asbestos, including any chrysotile asbestos- containing products or articles, for diaphragms in the chlor-alkali industry at not more than one facility until May 26, 2036: (1) On May 28, 2024, the person owns or operates more than two facilities that use chrysotile asbestos in chlor-alkali production; and (2) The person is converting more than two facilities that the person owns or operates that as of May 28, 2024 use chrysotile asbestos in chlor-alkali production from the use of chrysotile asbestos diaphragms to non-chrysotile asbestos membrane technology: (i) By May 28, 2029, the person has ceased all processing, distribution in commerce and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos at one (or more) facility undergoing or that has undergone such conversion; and (ii) By May 25, 2032 the person has ceased all processing, distribution in commerce and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos at two (or more) facilities undergoing or that have undergone conversion to non-chrysotile asbestos membrane technology; and (3) The person certifies to EPA compliance with the provisions of this paragraph, in accordance with §751.507. 

So other words we have a ban on the manufacture/importing of chrysotile asbestos to make diaphragms but the use of chrysotile asbestos diaphragms is not banned until 2036.  In addition, 751.509  Other prohibitions and restrictions of the manufacturing, processing, and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos covers:

• Prohibit the manufacture (including import), processing, use, distribution in commerce and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos, including any chrysotile asbestos-containing products or articles, for sheet gaskets in chemical production and require interim workplace controls for certain commercial uses after May 27, 2026.  With exceptions for titanium dioxide production until May 28, 2029, and processing nuclear material at the Savannah River Site until December 31, 2037. 
• Prohibit the manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos, including any chrysotile asbestos-containing products or articles, for oilfield brake blocks, aftermarket automotive brakes, and linings, other vehicle friction products, and other gaskets after November 25, 2024; 
• Prohibit the manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in commerce of chrysotile asbestos, including any chrysotile asbestos-containing products or articles, for consumer use of aftermarket automotive brakes and linings and other gaskets after November 25, 2024.
• All of these have exceptions to the distribution in commerce prohibition if they are already installed.

https://www.asbestos.com/occupations/auto-mechanics/

Section 751.511 Interim workplace controls of asbestos exposures is an interesting section considering it's stepping on the toes of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).  This section applies to the processing, and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos, including any chrysotile asbestos-containing products or articles, for chrysotile asbestos diaphragms in the chlor-alkali industry; and to the commercial use of chrysotile asbestos sheet gaskets for titanium dioxide production.   The section establishes an exposure limit called the Interim Existing Chemical Exposure Limit (ECEL):

• Beginning November 5, 2024,....no person is exposed to an airborne concentration of chrysotile asbestos in excess...0.005 fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc) as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA).  Remember the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit for asbestos is 0.1 f/cc as an 8-hour time weighted average.  The ECEL is a 20 times reduction from the PEL.
• Requires initial (performed as of May 28, 2024, and no later than November 25, 2024) & periodic exposure monitoring (performed within three months or six months based on previous results).
• Method of Monitoring utilizes OSHA 1910.1001 Appendix A, OSHA method ID-160, or the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 7400 method.  Allowance for the NIOSH 7402 method to adjust the analytical result to include only chrysotile asbestos. 

Personal Sampling Pump

The section also includes additional requirements for exposure monitoring, establishing regulated areas, exposure control procedures, respiratory protection, and workplace information and training.  The respirator section makes for interesting reading for those who know the OSHA respiratory protection standard.  Below are some examples of the respirator requirements:

• If exposure monitoring indicates the exposure is above 0.00view 5 f/cc and less than or equal to 0.05 f/cc.  The employer must provide either a half-mask supplied air (SAR) or airline respirator operated in demand mode or a half-mask self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) respirator operated in demand mode.
• If exposure monitoring indicates the exposure is above 0.05 f/cc and less than or equal to 0.125 f/cc.  The employer must provide a loose-fitting facepiece supplied air (SAR) or airline respirator operated in continuous flow mode.

Supplied airline respirator

It is obvious from these respirator selections EPA is reaffirming that there is no safe exposure level to asbestos.  For those of us who remember the EPA's and NIOSH's White Book "A Guide to Respiratory Protection for the Asbestos Abatement Industry", remember that this quote was in that book:

"Respirators which use filters to remove contaminants from the air do not provide as high a degree of protection for workers as respirators which supply clean pressurized air to the workers from a protected source."

Realize these restrictions are stricter than OSHA requirements and we wonder what this means for Part 2 of this evaluation process when EPA will be looking at Legacy issues?

Related articles

• The National Law Review - EPA Bans Ongoing Uses of Asbestos https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-bans-ongoing-uses-asbestos
• ADAO's FAQs and Quotes on EPA Part 1 Chrysotile Asbestos Rule
   https://www.asbestosdiseaseawareness.org/newsroom/blogs/faqs-and-quotes-on-epa-part-1-chrysotile-asbestos-rule/

The Role of Asbestos Inspections in Construction Safety: Don't Miss the Asbestos Inspection Panel at PACNY's Environmental Conference!

In the construction world, one of the most pressing concerns for worker safety is the potential asbestos exposure.  This hazardous material, once commonly used in various building materials for its fire-resistant and other properties, has been linked to serious health risks, including lung cancer, asbestosis, and mesothelioma.  Asbestos exposure remains a significant threat, especially in older buildings undergoing renovation or demolition.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have set strict guidelines to minimize this danger, but compliance hinges on one key factor: thorough and accurate asbestos inspections.

To explore the intricacies of asbestos inspections, Angelo Garcia, III of Future Environment Designs, Inc., will be moderating a distinguished panel at PACNY's 2025 Environmental Conference on Thursday, February 27, 2025. The panel will dive deep into the importance and differences in asbestos inspections from various perspectives. This includes Tom Laubenthal of TGL Consulting and ASTM E2356 Chairman, who will discuss the ASTM asbestos inspection standard, Chris Alonge now with Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DASNY) who will provide insights from an owner's perspective, Marc Rutstein from Environmental Consulting & Management Services, who will offer a consultant's viewpoint and highlight the differences between NYCDEP and NYSDOL inspections, and Matt Brooks from International Asbestos Removal (IAR), who will speak on the contractor’s perspective.

Asbestos pipe insulation with fitting insulation

Asbestos inspections play a vital role in identifying materials that may contain asbestos before they are disturbed. This proactive approach not only prevents worker exposure but also ensures that proper abatement procedures are followed. A well-executed asbestos inspection is the first line of defense against the release of airborne asbestos fibers, which can be deadly when inhaled.

Understanding the Importance of Homogeneous Areas

At the heart of every asbestos inspection is the process of determining whether a material is classified as a surfacing material, thermal system insulation, or miscellaneous material.  Once the material type is identified, the inspector must establish whether the materials are homogeneous.  According to the EPA’s Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), a homogeneous area is defined as one where the material is uniform in color and texture.  

Floor tiles and numerous homogeneous areas

However, that is not the only definition of homogeneous area/material.  For example, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has established a Standard Practice for Comprehensive Asbestos Surveys (ASTM E2356-18) in this standard the definition of homogeneous area is surfacing material, thermal system insulation material, or miscellaneous material that is uniform in color and texture and apparent or known date of installation. The other definitions that are used by inspectors also include some reference to installation or formulation in addition to color and texture.  This classification is crucial because it informs the number of samples that must be taken to accurately assess the presence of asbestos.

Sampling Procedures: The Foundation of a Successful Inspection

For surfacing materials, the size of the homogeneous area directly influences the number of samples needed. Under the EPA’s guidelines, inspectors follow the “3-5-7 rule.” This means that three samples are required for areas smaller than 1,000 square feet, five samples for areas between 1,000 and 5,000 square feet, and seven samples for areas larger than 5,000 square feet. Additionally, the EPA’s “Pink Book,” formally known as Asbestos in Buildings: Simplified Sampling Scheme for Friable Surfacing Materials, recommends taking nine samples per homogeneous area, regardless of the square footage, for increased accuracy.

Asbestos Fireproofing

For thermal system insulation, the process differs slightly. Inspectors must determine if the material is homogeneous, patch material, or material used on fittings like elbows and valves. Homogeneous areas of thermal system insulation require three samples, while patch materials smaller than six linear or square feet only need one sample (the only time one sample is allowed). Cement or plaster used on fittings must be sampled based on the specific mechanical system in question, and a minimum of two samples is required for each system. However, the EPA in A Guide to Performing Reinspections Under AHERA strongly advises taking at least three samples in larger homogeneous areas, even if regulations don't mandate it.

For materials such as joint compound and add-on materials, however, the EPA’s “Asbestos Sampling Bulletin dated September 30, 1994” specifies that three samples are required for each material. These distinctions are critical for asbestos inspectors to ensure compliance and accuracy in their assessments (see our original blog post on asbestos surveys).

In May 2007, the EPA provided important clarification on sampling requirements.  Mr. Chris Alonge, at the time, was working for New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) and he requested clarification regarding the number of samples that should be taken for each suspect asbestos-containing homogeneous miscellaneous material.  The clarification was distributed by the Professional Abatement Contractors of New York (PACNY) in November 2007. According to this clarification, the minimum number of samples that should be taken of miscellaneous materials (i.e., floor tiles, roofing, caulk, ceiling tiles) is two (see our original blog post on this issue).

Respirator and protective clothing should be worn by the inspector during sampling

Following proper sampling protocols is crucial because asbestos is considered present if any one of the samples from a homogeneous area contains more than 1% asbestos. Conversely, if all samples return asbestos concentrations at or below 1%, the area is deemed asbestos-free—though it’s important to remember that materials containing 1% or less of asbestos are still regulated under OSHA’s asbestos standard (see the Varga letter).

The Legal and Health Implications of Incomplete Inspections

Inadequate or incorrect asbestos inspections can have severe consequences.  From a legal standpoint, failing to adhere to EPA and OSHA regulations can result in hefty fines and penalties.  Remember neither regulation has a specific end date for buildings not containing asbestos (see our post Is There an Appropriate End Date for Asbestos Use?).  More importantly, from a health perspective, improperly identifying or failing to identify asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) can expose construction workers to dangerous fibers, leading to long-term health problems.  Given that asbestos-related diseases may take decades to develop, the human cost of negligent inspections can be devastating.

The closet door with asbestos core was cut without any precautions costing over $30,000 to clean up the contamination.

Mr. Tom Laubenthal wrote EPA in November 2014 regarding The Standard Practice for Comprehensive Asbestos Surveys (ASTM E2356-18) Pre-Construction Survey (section 8 of the standard) meeting the requirement under National Emissions Standards of Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) of a thorough inspection.  EPA responded that they would expect an owner/operator to follow the steps in Sections 1 through 5 and Section 8 to comply with the NESHAPS regulation. This standard provides a framework for conducting thorough asbestos inspections, particularly in pre-construction scenarios, ensuring that no asbestos-containing material goes unnoticed.

Conclusion: The Essential Role of Inspections

Asbestos inspections are the cornerstone of any effort to protect workers from exposure to this hazardous material. By adhering to the EPA’s and OSHA’s strict sampling and inspection guidelines, inspectors can identify asbestos-containing materials before they are disturbed, reducing the risk of airborne fibers and subsequent health issues. Given the serious implications of asbestos exposure, thorough inspections are not just a regulatory requirement—they are a moral imperative in safeguarding the health and well-being of workers.

Asbestos Floor Tiles disturbed before identification led to a clean-up costing over $250,000

In the end, the responsibility lies with all stakeholders—building owners, contractors, and asbestos inspectors alike—to ensure that every construction or renovation project is free from asbestos hazards. As inspectors, staying current on regulations, maintaining rigorous sampling standards, and educating clients on the risks and regulations associated with asbestos are critical components in this ongoing battle against a deadly substance.

The asbestos inspection panel promises to be an invaluable session for professionals across the construction, consulting, and regulatory industries. With these diverse viewpoints, we aim to shed light on the critical role inspections play in protecting workers and ensuring compliance with ever-evolving asbestos regulations.  Asbestos inspections are not just about checking boxes—they are about saving lives.

OSHA Violations Indicate Enforcement of Asbestos Standard

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recently cited two hospital construction sites for violations related to the asbestos construction standard. The closest site in Rochester, New York involved Gordon-Smith Contracting that was cited for 3 alleged willful and 7 serious violations of the asbestos and respiratory standards and faces a total of $99,925 in proposed fines.

Gordon-Smith employees were required to remove ceiling tiles and other materials that were embedded in or adjacent to asbestos containing fireproofing without proper safeguards. The willful citations, accounting for $87,000, were for not using wet methods or wetting agents to control asbestos exposures, employees not supplied with approved respirators,and the workers had not been trained in asbestos removal. The seven serious citations were issued to Gordon-Smith for not ensuring each employee wore the appropriate respiratory, hand, and head protection; not immediately mending or replacing ripped or torn protective work suits; no written respirator program, and not informing employees of the results of asbestos monitoring.

The second hospital site was in Mescalero, New Mexico involving Maloy Construction, a general construction company, and Deerfield Corp., a plumbing and construction company. OSHA cited Maloy Construction with one alleged willful and 4 alleged serious violations totalling $75,600 in proposed fines. The willful violation was for failing to assure that Deerfield, the subcontractor, was in compliance with OSHA's asbestos standard. The serious violations include failing to inform other employees in the area of the asbestos work, assessing the exposure, and designating and containing the asbestos materials.

OSHA cited Deerfield with 3 alleged willful and nine alleged serious violations accounting for $81,900 in proposed fines. The willful violations were failing to regulate the asbestos area, assess the initial exposure, and provide protective equipment. The serious violations included failing to launder contaminated clothing, train employees on asbestos removal, label containers for waste, and provide a competent person to properly supervise the work area.

These citations show what OSHA focuses on when coming to an asbestos abatement project. Asbestos contractors and consultants should make sure they have a written respiratory protection program with an appropriately trained administrator; an initial exposure assessment; and a means for ensuring employees are informed of the asbestos monitoring results. While general contractors or construction managers must ensure that their subcontractors are in compliance with the OSHA asbestos standard.

OSHA’s Proposed Asbestos Respirator Changes Raise Important Safety Concerns

As someone who has spent decades navigating the complexities of asbestos regulations, we recognize that clarity, practicality, and worker protection must be at the core of any regulatory update.  Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA's) recent proposal to revise certain respirator-related provisions within the asbestos construction standard (29 CFR 1926.1101) attempts that but it’s important for all of us in the industry to carefully evaluate how these changes impact worker protection, especially concerning respirator requirements.

Confusion about the 9/11 type of respirator/filter to wear

Three proposed changes stand out to us as potentially problematic:

1. Removing the HEPA Filter Requirement

For decades, HEPA filters have been the gold standard for respirators, protecting workers from asbestos fibers. The current OSHA standard mandates HEPA filters (P100 filters) on all powered and non-powered air-purifying respirators to ensure maximum filtration efficiency.

OSHA’s proposal to eliminate this specific HEPA filter requirement, citing updated National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) certification standards (42 CFR part 84), raises questions.  While newer filter types may meet certification requirements, HEPA filters’ proven reliability and high filtration efficiency have been foundational in asbestos protection.

The risk here is that removing the HEPA filter mandate could lead to the use of less effective filters (N95s) or confusion over filter equivalency, ultimately compromising worker safety.  The asbestos hazard is too severe to accept any uncertainty about filter performance.

2. Replacing Supplied-Air Respirators with PAPRs

Current OSHA standards require supplied-air respirators (SARs) operated in pressure-demand mode with an auxiliary positive-pressure self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) backup for exposures exceeding 1 (one) fiber per cubic centimeter (f/cc).  The proposed change to this section would replace the specific respirator requirement (SAR/SCBA, with an Assigned Protection Factor (APF) of 1,000) with a requirement to provide a respirator with a minimum APF of 1,000.  That would include a full-face Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPR) and helmet/hood PAPR (having manufacturer test evidence to support an APF of 1,000).

For high-level asbestos exposures, this shift is concerning. Supplied-air respirators provide a higher level of protection against variable airborne fiber concentrations, and the SCBA backup is critical for emergency scenarios.  Moving to PAPRs risks lowering the safety margin in situations where asbestos concentrations spike unexpectedly.

Workers wearing PAPRs 

3. Replacing PAPRs with Full Facepiece APRs

Another change to the current standard includes providing a tight-fitting powered air-purifying respirator (APF 1,000) or a full facepiece, supplied-air respirator operated in the pressure-demand mode, and equipped with either HEPA egress cartridges or an auxiliary positive-pressure, self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) (APF 1,000) for exposure levels at or below 1 f/cc.  The proposed change would require employers to provide a respirator that has a minimum of an APF 50.  This would allow the use of a full-facepiece air purifying respirator (APR).  This is definitely not an increase in protection; it is a significant reduction of protection.

---

Why These Concerns Matter

Asbestos remains one of the most hazardous occupational exposures, with no safe level of exposure (according to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)).  Respiratory protection is the last line of defense when engineering and work practice controls cannot fully eliminate airborne fibers.

Standards must err on the side of maximum protection, not convenience or cost savings.  Removing the HEPA filter requirement, substituting SARs with PAPRs, and PAPRs for full facepiece APRs for high-exposure Class I asbestos work would reduce protection levels at a time when new asbestos exposures still occur daily, and there are questions about whether the current permissible exposure limit is low enough.

Respirator Protection Types

---

What Are the Key Changes?

Replacing Specific Respirator Types with APF-Based Selection: Instead of mandating exact respirator models, employers will select respirators that meet or exceed required APFs (e.g., minimum APF of 50 or 1,000, depending on exposure scenarios).

Removing Redundant Provisions: OSHA is proposing to eliminate duplicative language in asbestos standards that overlaps with general respiratory protection requirements, simplifying the rules without adding burdens.

Updating Filter Requirements: The current HEPA filter mandate for air-purifying respirators is being reconsidered because NIOSH’s certification has evolved, allowing other certified particulate filters that offer equivalent protection.  The fact is that asbestos is not like any other particulate.  Because of the aerodynamics of the fiber and the size of the fibers, which can cause disease.  N95s do not provide equivalent protection to a HEPA filter.

Training Requirements Streamlined: OSHA intends to reduce duplicative respirator training provisions, relying more on the general respiratory protection standard’s comprehensive training requirements.

Asbestos Training Class

What Is OSHA Seeking From the Public?

OSHA is actively requesting comments on several points, including: 

• Concerns about potential decreases in worker safety from these proposed changes. 
• Alternative approaches to respirator provisions.
• The practicality and frequency of employees requesting PAPRs.
• Whether removing certain asbestos-specific provisions might lessen protections.
• The appropriateness of lifting the prohibition on filtering facepiece respirators.
• Employers' experiences with duplicative training requirements.

Final Thoughts

We support OSHA’s goal to update asbestos standards to reflect advances in technology and reduce unnecessary compliance burdens. However, changes to respirator requirements must be grounded in solid evidence and prioritize worker health above all.

OSHA’s proposal is a critical opportunity for industry stakeholders to weigh in. We must ensure that any revisions do not erode decades of hard-earned protection for workers facing asbestos hazards.

---

If you work with asbestos or manage respiratory protection programs, we urge you to review OSHA’s proposal carefully and submit comments highlighting these concerns before the comment period closes on November 1, 2025.